↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a core patient-reported-outcome measure set for operationalizing success in multimodal pain therapy: useful for depicting long-term success?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of a core patient-reported-outcome measure set for operationalizing success in multimodal pain therapy: useful for depicting long-term success?
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2911-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolin Donath, Christa Geiß, Christoph Schön

Abstract

The study aims to validate a previously developed and published combined success criterion for patients after multimodal pain therapy (Donath et al., BMC Health Serv Res 15:272, 2015). The criterion classifies treated patients as successful in the long term on the basis of pain severity, disability through pain, depressiveness, and health-related quality of life. Routine longitudinal data of 135 pain patients treated with multimodal pain therapy in 2014-2015 at the Interdisciplinary Pain Center of the University Clinic Erlangen were available at baseline, therapy start, therapy end, and 12 months after treatment. Patients were, on average, 51.0 (SD 11.1) years old and to 63.7% female, two thirds were employed (66.7%). We conducted an analysis of concurrent validity (with: pain severity, disability through pain, depressiveness, mental and physical quality of life), criterion validity (with disability days, self-rated success), convergent validity (with stress, anxiety, well-being), and discriminant validity (with chronicity of pain, comorbidity), objectivity, and reliability. Statistically, descriptive and inference statistics, graphical methods and MANOVAs were used. Patients classified as successful had significantly better values on the 5 variables demonstrating concurrent validity (all p < .001), significantly fewer Disability days (M = 15.31 (SD = 23.15) vs. M = 26.75 (SD = 29.15)); t (133) = 2.308; p = .024, less Anxiety (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 2.972, p = .034), less Stress (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 9.907, p < .001), and better Well-being (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 9.594, p < .001) 12 months after treatment than patients classified as not successful. The Spearman correlation between success classification and Chronicity stage was .094 (p = .280). We demonstrated the validity of the combined success criterion with long-term data in addition to confirming the reliability and objectivity of the criterion. Future research might consider identifying predictors of success in multi-modal pain therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Psychology 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,293,921
of 15,922,425 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,065
of 5,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,379
of 279,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,425 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them